Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />analysis might not apply where the <br /> <br />diversions under the original project <br /> <br />were not 100% consumptive to the basin <br /> <br />of origin and where return flow has to <br /> <br />be considered or where the point of <br /> <br />diversion for a conditional water right <br /> <br />is moved upstream, above some of the <br /> <br /> <br />originally decreed sources of supply. <br /> <br /> <br />e. One important implication of the <br /> <br />ROM POCO case: If a land use <br /> <br />designation or federal permitting <br /> <br />requirement calls the feasibility of a <br /> <br />(. <br />. <br /> <br />proposed water project into question, <br /> <br />the hypothetical yield of conditional <br /> <br />water rights may still .be enjoyed to <br /> <br />the extent that the water rights can be <br /> <br />developed elsewhere without injuring <br /> <br />other water rights. <br /> <br />D. A limited market in_conditional water rights <br />has developed in Colorado around these <br /> <br />principles. Besides the Twin Lakes and ROMPOCO <br /> <br />sales: <br /> <br />1. The conditional water rights for the Four <br /> <br />Counties and Bear Reservoir projects in the <br /> <br />headwaters of the Yampa River Basin were <br /> <br />acquired by the Colorado Ute Electric <br /> <br />19 <br />